Professor challenges evolution (Pittsburgh Professor's article in The New Anatomist)

Pittnews.com ^ | 02/09/2006 | NAN AMA SARFO

[js1138]

It took you two posts to call me a liar.

That happens when you post untruths.

[Nathan Zachary]

Those are "LAWS" of gravity. We use them to launch probes into space. I guess you are unawre of that. Without that "theory"
long ago being proved into LAW, we wouldn't be able to put satalites in orbit.
Regardless of what you say, they are provable, and DISPROVE much evolution THEORY. science works against you.
But nobody is supposed to question the religion of evolution, are they.
We have "separation of church and state" in this country, works the same against the religion of evolution people are trying to elevate beyond questioning.
Islam does that too, the kill those who question their "religion".

[Old Seadog]

It seems as if Darwin's theory of evolution is, in itself, evolving

[Dimensio]

Those are "LAWS" of gravity. We use them to launch probes into space.

No one is challenging the validity of current understanding of gravity. The issue here is how you are misapplying it to "prove" your claims about the moon.

Without that "theory" long ago being proved into LAW

Theories are not "proved" into LAW. Theories and laws are different kinds of statements in science. Laws are no more "proven" than theories.

Regardless of what you say, they are provable, and DISPROVE much evolution THEORY.

As has been pointed out, your "disproof" of an old earth is easily refuted. That you go on a rant about gravity being "PROVEN" demonstrates to me that you 1) don't understand how science works (because nothing in science is ever "proven") and 2) didn't bother to look at the refutation, because there's no challenge to current understanding of gravity in it. Either you're too arrogant to even consider that the "disproof" you've posted might possibly be in error, or you're too much of a coward to investigage angles that might prove you wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Without that "theory"
long ago being proved into LAW,"

Never happens. Theories don't become *laws*.

"Genetic changes are always recessive and results in a loss, never a gain, and never an improvement."

Nonsense. We ALL have mutations, every one of us, and there is no sign of any degeneration over recorded history. Also, we see new alleles being formed that increase the fitness of an organism in an environment. This happens all the time.

[Dimensio]

All scientific theories either adapt to new evidence or are discarded when observations directly contradict their fundamental implications.

[Dead Dog]

How dare this fool disparage the name of Darwin, Glory Be To Him. This isn't science, it is faith baised speculation! Behead the non-believers!

[DeweyCA]

This sounds like the "punctuated equilibrium" that Stephen J. Gould promulgated, because he too saw the many gaps in the fossil record. Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who was the USA'a #1 promoter of evolution, also said that the neo-Darwinian idea of gradual evolution leading to new species is a myth.

[Dimensio]

Note that Professor Schwartz is not only not disputing that evolution occurs, but actually states that it does occur. I suspect, however, that many creationists will completely ignore this fact and add him to the "growing list of scientists questioning Darwinism".

[Dimensio]

Punctuated equlibrium was considered even by contemporaries of Darwin. Huxley, a close friend, suggested it.

[jec41]

The gravitational constant is 6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s

There are three thought concepts. Philosophy, Mathematics, and Science. The above is a Mathematical concept. It is of mathematics not science. There is no constant comparison value for mathematics and science.

[Nathan Zachary]

Adaptation isn't a genetic gain or loss, it's a use of what is already present in the information, which becomes activated with certain stimulation (moving to a warmer climate increases pigmentation for example)

Genetic LOSS is a loss of information, and never results in an improvent, unless you think kids born without arms, legs, etc are improvements.

[Dimensio]

Genetic LOSS is a loss of information,

Genetic change != genetic loss.

and never results in an improvent, unless you think kids born without arms, legs, etc are improvements.

And are you so dense as to believe that this is the only possible result of genetic change?

[Elsie]

This article is discussing details of the process, not whether evolution proceeds along Darwinian lines.

AHhh...

but as we ALL know, the devil is in the details!

[Virginia-American]

I think that I'll contact Professor Schwartz to see if he'll be one of my 2,000.

I'd be interested in his response.

[Aquinasfan]

It's not really a "challenge" to Darwinism, and certainly not to evolution. Just pointing out that sometimes things change rapidly.

It's punk eek redux. I thought this was crime-thought in evo circles.

[Dimensio]

Read further. Snowbelt Man decided to go ahead and add Professor Schwartz to the list without asking. Creationist dishonesty knows no bounds or shame.

[Nathan Zachary]

"All scientific theories either adapt to new evidence or are discarded when observations directly contradict their fundamental implications." Ecxept for evolutionists.

[adorno]

“It’s not like fish developed bony teeth one piece at a time. It happened suddenly.”

Hmmm???

Suddenly?

Could it be instantly???

Like in 'intelligently designed" and introduced into a species, instantly?

How about an instant new species?

[Dimensio]

Like in 'intelligently designed" and introduced into a species, instantly?

No, Professor Schwartz is not saying that.